tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC August 18, 2022 12:00am-1:00am PDT
with us, right here at the 11th hour. we have the facts. al franken right there, he happens to be one of our favorite guests. and on that final note, i wish you all a very good night. from all our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with us. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. of tomorrow >> tonight on all in -- >> house speaker nancy pelosi says she fears for our very democracy if republicans win in november. do you? >> the fate of democracy and the republican party in the wake of liz cheney's loss. >> i think we have to make sure that we are fighting against every single election denier. the election deniers, right now, are republicans. >> then, what did really rudy giuliani tell a fulton county grand jury? >> do you believe president trump is the ultimate target of this investigation? >> and are we on the verge of seeing a roadmap to the government's ongoing investigation of donald trump?
plus, raw politics at the green grocer in pennsylvania. >> for those watching in pennsylvania, you know how particular many people are about their groceries. what happened with wegmans and wagner's? can you explain that to then? >> and the republican reckoning with extreme abortion laws that needs to be seen to be believed. >> that weighs on me. i voted for that bill. these are affecting people. >> when all in starts right now -- >> good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes, we now have, of course, the results, from wyoming's lone at-large congressional seat. congresswoman liz cheney, vice chair of the january 6th committee was, well, annihilated, as we expected. she lost by a resounding 37 points, 28. 9% to 68. 3%. wyoming voters overwhelmingly rebuked cheney, who stood up to donald trump after his insurrection, voting to impeach him and then helping to lead the committee investigating his
actions. now liz cheney has earned a lot of praise, especially liberal circles, for taking a stand against trump and his attempt to end america's constitutional republic. fellow january 6th committee member, congressman jamie raskin, has spoken incredibly fondly about her, recently telling the new republic that she has acted with great honesty confront the lies of the trump machinery. raskin also said about his unlikely friend, quote, liz will follow donald trump to the gates of hell, if she needs to make sure that justice is done and the truth is known. and there is no doubt liz cheney has made genuine career political sacrifices on behalf of american democracy. that was evident last night, almost as soon as polls closed. and what she has done is praiseworthy and important. but it is also the case that cheney is a bone deep reactionary, a conservative to her core, and also, crucially, a partisan republican. none of that has changed. and as strange as it may seem, she has, i think, taking this
course of action in an attempt to save the republican party. this morning, on the today show, liz cheney laid out her case. >> look, i think the republican party today is in very bad shape. and i think that we have a tremendous amount of work to do. i think it could take several election cycles, but the country has got to have a republican party that is actually based on substance, based on principles, based on a belief in limited government, and low taxes, and a strong national defence, a belief that the family has got to be the center of our community. and of our lives. and those are the principles i believe in. that is what the party used to
stand for. and we have got to get the party back to that. >> now, i will leave aside my own significant quibbles with the definition of what the party used to stand for. you will notice, just to make one observation, she omitted the torture program, the war crimes that were championed by her father, endorsed by her, from that list. but the key point here is that in her own understanding, congresswoman cheney is standing up to now trump, not just for the sake of american democracy, but for the sake of the institutional vitality, and indeed survival, of the republican party itself. and i think she is right on this. and i think it is underappreciated how right she is, by everyone. because here is the thing. a conservative parked in a two party liberal democracy like ours, which is what the republican party is and has been, cannot continue to thrive or even exist if the maga authoritarian cult takes over. there is no space for that institution in the world in which donald trump is successful, in which he successfully overturns american democracy, which is to say, to save the republican party, you
actually must save american democracy. and somehow, liz cheney seems to be one of the only members of her party to grasp this elemental truth, or at least one of the only ones to act on it. the other republican cowards cannot muster the same courage to do what he has done to save their own hides in the end. instead, they have dealt with this tension, between the need to, again, preserve american democracy and their desire to win elections, retain their jobs, by basically going along with whatever donald trump says, winking and nodding and evading sometimes, pretending they didn't hear it. and that is basically the consensus view. that appears to be the calculation that everyone from florida governor ron desantis, to senate minority leader mitch mcconnell has made. the republican who has been the most forthright about his thinking on this actually, is senator lindsey graham of south carolina. graham, of course, not always a fan of donald trump. in fact, he has made a real u-turn since that 2016
campaign. >> here is what i think. i think donald trump is a political car wreck. he is a race baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. he is a jack bleep -- donald trump is not actually strong, he's weak, he's a bully, he's a cartoon character. -- he shouldn't be commander-in-chief. he is destroying the party. it will be a generation before we could overcome this, maybe never. you know how you make america great again? tell donald trump to go to hell. >> now, graham, i suppose, to his credit, has been very honest about why he has come around on donald trump. this is what he said at a right-wing pro trump summit left just last month. >> if you think trump is bad for the party, i disagree with you. i think president trump is good for the party.
[applause] let me tell you why. president trump has gotten people who wouldn't give me or romney or anybody else at the time of day -- they believe that he is on their side. i am trying to move toward a strong america. and he is the vehicle to get us there. >> now this is really interesting. because actually, if you look at the earlier clips of lindsey graham, and the latter ones, he's making the same argument, it just about what don trump does about the republican party, right? efforts he thought he was bad for the republican party, now he has become convinced he is good. and argument is basically, what are you going to do? the base loves him. and in the short term, to win elections for the republican party, lindsey graham is correct. the math just does not work for republicans in this election, or the 12 years after, to achieve reliable, broad victories without donald trump and his supporters. it doesn't work. but graham and everyone who toes that line -- right? -- they don't seem to have thought through what happens next. so, you win some elections. maybe you get power. what happens if trump and his people win? these are people who are, by their own words, fundamentally
opposed to the american system. what happens if you have people who think that hugo chavez's ghost hacked voting machines, and the chinese stuck in bamboo paper to steal an election. what happens when you have them running our elections? we are close to that. we are on the precipice of that, under the lindsay graham strategy. that is what is going to happen, if he is right. people come out and vote for him. what happens when that succeeds? when trump succeeds? what happens when trump succeeds where january 6th barely failed? i will tell you what happens. and i think would liz cheney agree with me. the republican party, the thing we know is that, will not be preserved. if donald trump succeeds in his project of destroying american democracy, it will succeed in creating something entirely new, something very ugly, and let me tell you, incredibly unpredictable. and it will not be a world, i would be willing to wet, in which people like lindsey graham or mitch mcconnell or a lot of the rest of them, thrive.
liz cheney seems to be just about the only person in the party who recognizes this at the cellular level. keep in mind she is not a liberal in any way. she's a solid right-winger. she was number three and house leadership, she voted in line with donald trump even more than lindsey graham did! she was with trump just about every step of the way, even while he was, essentially, kidnapping children. she was with him until he tried to topple america's constitutional republic. watching him attempt to assassinate american democracy maze made these cheney realize that you cannot keep the tiger on the leash because he will eat you. she realized, there is no future with donald trump, even for her most selfish political, institutional interest, the republican party, to which she is on heir. what would there be left to rule except the kingdom of actions if trump is successful
in his project? and if enough of our cause leagues, have realized it to, had the fortitude encourage that liz cheney had, they might be able to do something about it. they might have a moment, if they collectively stop when they had the opportunity, during the second impeachment trial -- if they had voted to convict, bar him from future office, i don't think we would be in the situation. but they were cowards. they were all cowards. and so liz cheney is alone. and we are going to see, all of us, how the lindsey graham strategy plays out. tim miller is a writer at large from the bulwark and a former rnc spokesperson. mona charen is the policy editor for the bulwark and former speech writer from nancy reagan. they both join me now. first, let me just start with your response to this thesis, that they are embedded in the institutional interest of the republican party, as a conservative party, in a democracy, for democracy to
continue. and that liz cheney understands this and, at some level, is doing something that she thinks adherence to the benefit of what we have come to think of the republican party. mona? >> i have a slightly different perception of liz cheney from you. >> right. >> i think that she is being far less concerned about republicans and the fate of the republican party, and she's really all about the fate of the country, recognizing that donald trump's descendants is a threat to our very democratic system, and therefore, she has really shed a lot of her partisan concerns. i mean, you can hear it in the interviews, that you said she hasn't become any less partisan. i don't agree. if you listen to her, she is really just about unity now. >> yeah, i think that's fair. i think she has become part of the popular front, in defensive america's constitutional governance, basically. which is broad, i like to joke, it goes from norm chomsky to
bill kristol, it's a big tent. she is in that. >> right. >> but i do think that -- it goes from i think the point that she grasps and others don't, tim -- i don't think graham and the other can conceptualized trump success. i don't think they think he's capable of pulling it off. and so i think they think they will still be in the driver's seat, that mitch mcconnell will get power back and he will sort of run the show. and they will get their judges. and no one has thought through, like, what does it actually look like if they really pull
it off, right? if the whole american experiment collapses in on itself, what is life like for mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham? i think it doesn't look as good as i think they might understand. >> yeah, i agree. i think what is so refreshing about liz cheney is that her view of donald trump is really not all that different from mitch mcconnell's view of donald trump, right? they both think he is dangerous. >> yes. >> they both think he is buffoonish. they both think he would just disappear. but what liz cheney does is then act on that, as if that is a very serious thing that needs to be acted upon. and that has been -- the refreshing thing about her. and also the refreshing were frustrating thing about us, those who know that our former colleagues and former friends see him in the same way that we see him and are acting on it. and that, i think, relates directly to this threat assessment. she saw january 6th in the same way that we all did, as a potentially existential threat to the country. she sees all these maga secretaries of state and gubernatorial candidates coming up as a existential threat to the country. and i think that whether lindsey graham has convinced himself that he can nudge donald trump the right direction, or whether he thinks that this is all to buffoonish and silly to actually come down, whether he lives in this kind of privileged bubble that makes him feel like the american system will never be toppled and that is not something to
worry about or some combination of all those things -- they just are not acting on the reality that we all see and she is. >> but chris -- >> yeah, go ahead, go ahead, mona. >> if you as a republican can look at donald trump and say, yes, he represents a threat to our way of life, yes, he represents a threat to the democratic experiment, but i am going to go ahead and support him anyway because my reelection is at issue, then you really don't care. if you really understand that and you know what is at stake, then you really don't care about the country in the end. that's what it comes down to. >> yeah. and mona, there's also a tactical question as well, which is so frustrating -- i think in retrospect, when you look at the ten republicans that voted for impeachment, for instance, among whom liz cheney is one of them, basically there is only two remaining candidates for reelection.
the others have bad out bowed out. -- they have been picked off one by one. but there was a moment after january 6th, i remember sitting in front of this camera with these broke that mitch mcconnell was leaking, he did know how he was going to vote in impeachment. if people moved as a group -- >> absolutely -- >> it might be different, but they ended up going out there and then turning around. and there was no one behind them. >> and it's funny, because, you know, there are these things on the hill. when i have, like, a tough vote, where they say, well, if we all hold hands together, then we can do it. >> [inaudible] >> across the aisle, take some heat from our side -- but they never applied that
principle within the republican party -- >> right -- >> if they had just held hands, they could've done it, on to occasions. so -- >> and they haven't now, tim, which means that they have got the tiger problem. i mean, this is really it, right? and it is not a thing. and i think all three of us agree on this. it is not a thing that can be ignored or compromised or massaged or synthesized. it is a dividing line that cannot be bridged. and cheney and kinzinger and you as well and others call that, but very few others will. >> it would be the metaphor to death, the tiger owns and now. they are at the mercy of the tiger. they don't control and how. they might have for a moment. but now, they have even completely given a pretending as if they do. and i think the thing that is so frustrating, when i listen to your intro, chris, is not only was it the right thing for, morally, and for the country, for them to all hold hands and jump together, during the second impeachment, but it was the right thing for the party! in the medium term! >> absolutely. >> they could have very easily just moved on to rhonda santas. -- percent of the party would have been donald trump dead enders.
like the last japanese fighting the war. but most of the party would have moved around desantis. the trump party would have been done. a couple of them would have been sacrifice in the primaries. we would have needed a few more liz cheneys, that's it. that's the only thing that separated her from them. she had the courage to say, i will sacrifice myself on the pyre. -- >> that's my point. that's my thesis. here all the other things aside, i don't think the people that were under the public and party, have correctly did use their own self interest in more medium term than just the next election. and i think everyone is going to pay for it in the end, hopefully not in the worst-case scenario. tim miller and mona charen, thank you both. >> thanks. >> coming up, the incredible scene outside of fulton county courthouse today, down the state of georgia, donald trump 's former lawyer, rudy giuliani, testifies before a georgia grand jury. what did rudy say -- next.
it's time for the biggest sale of the year, on the sleep number 360 smart bed. why choose proven quality sleep from sleep number? because proven quality sleep is vital to our health and wellness, only the sleep number 360 smart bed keeps you cool, then senses and effortlessly adjusts for your best sleep. and tells you exactly how well you slept. your sleepiq score. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. so, you can be your best for yourself and those you care about most. and now, all smart beds are on sale. save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. only for a limited time.
i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85,
call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. there is overwhelming proof of
fraud, it depends on you and it depends on your determination of credibility. you don't have to be a genius to figure out that those votes are not legitimate votes. you don't put legitimate votes under a table. >> no. >> until you throw the opposition out, and in the middle of the night count them! we would have to be fools to think that. so, no need to push any further, but there is more than ample evidence to conclude that this election was a sham. in my view, he was part of a concerted plan. -- cities are picks, where they thought they can get away with it. >> that was trump lawyer and coup plotter rudy giuliani, back in 2020, baseless lies and accusations. pretty close to slander, actually, but the presidential election was rigged. today, he returned to the state to testify in the ongoing fulton county criminal
investigation into election interference in the 2020 election. an investigation that we have since learned that he was formerly a target of. as you can see, giuliani was originally locked out of the courthouse, had to wait for a security officer to lead him into the building with all the press assembled. when asked, he was noncommittal as to whether or not he would cooperate with the investigation. >> where are you expecting to talk about here today? >> if they asked the question -- >> will be cooperative, your attorney in new york says you can promise how responsive you'll be? >> you're right. >> and that we had much to say
about georgia after elections, it's unclear what he said today is more than six hours before the grand jury. according to the atlanta journal-constitution, giuliani 's attorneys would never say if he pleaded the fifth amendment to avoid self incrimination. rebecca -- she is now a law professor new york law school, she joins me now. rebecca, first i want to talk about the situation giuliani finds himself in, in which he's been informed that he is a target of the investigation, and also subpoenaed for testimony. 11 plus one seems like it has up to two, if you're advising him illegally. how common is this kind of thing where the grand jury -- has been informed by the prosecutors office that they are a target. >> it happens, and different states do it differently, but it certainly happens most of the time under these circumstances, any individual in the right mind would plead the fifth because, obviously the investigators have told -- and the da has told rudy giuliani that they have substantial evidence at this point to link him to criminal activity, and that an indictment is possible. under those conditions, it's hard to imagine why he would be forthcoming. he had said previously that he was going to invoke the attorney client privilege, but that would if i only covered part of his testimony, here, because it only covers communications with the clients, confidential communications for
the purpose of obtaining legal advice. there's a lot of other information that they're looking for, that there wasn't even come close to. the question is, does he plead the fifth or not? it would be unusual, to say the least, if he was forthcoming under these circumstances. >> you and i have spoken of this case a number of times, and it's stuck with me one time, we are talking about this case i was talking about that presidential phone call, particularly trump's phone call with raffensperger, and i said this seems criminal on his face and you said, look, there is intent here, it's not a slam dunk case by any means. what is your assessment of the legal threat right now, not to trump, who obviously has not been identified as a target, but to the people like giuliani who do seem like there in the crosshairs? >> you know, i think since then there has been a lot of information that may have changed my position somewhat, and most of that comes from the number of times from top advisers he's been told that he lost that election. so, the notion that he honestly
believes that this moment that the election was stolen, i thought when i last came on and said that the that was plausible, and i think it's an increasingly less plausible defense here. in terms of rudy giuliani and whether he thought that, again it's hard to imagine especially given the fact that we've heard reporting with -- it seems like there has to be, or something like that. so clearly that didn't like seem like unlikely defence from either, sort of certain point for a lawyer, it's like you're charged for to understanding the difference between facts and fantasy. and if you're defenses you bought into a fantasy, that is a lame defense. >> i want to ask a question about another local prosecutor 's case in another trump related case, that's your old office in the manhattan district attorneys offices, who brought charges against weisselberg, and criminal charges against the trump org excel. we got word today that weisselberg will plead guilty tomorrow, to another number of
felonies, and will not cooperate against trump personally, but indicating that he will cooperate in a criminal trial of the trump organization, but do you make of it? >> that's big news, because it makes it such that it's hard to imagine what defense the organization has, because an organization, obviously, it has no separate existence other than through its employees. and so, if a high managerial agent, someone in a position of power like weisselberg is committing crimes, and says that he was committing crimes on behalf of the organization, that strips the organization of almost any defense in this case, which then leads to a very likely criminal conviction, and that's a big deal because we used to say in an office, that's a death sentence for an organization or an organization, a conviction makes it very
highly unlikely that the organization will continue. i know that trump org is complex, and this notion about every piece of the trump organization. but i do think it's significant for trump, his, business and the future of his business in new york. >> all right, rebecca roiphe, it is always thank you. >> thank you. >> still ahead, the justice department has been tightlipped about why they searched donald trump's retirement home. tomorrow, a judge can reveal a lot more, a former fbi special agent big snow to expect, next.
it's time for the biggest sale of the year, on the sleep number 360 smart bed. it's temperature balancing, so you both say cool. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. all smart beds are on sale. save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. only for a limited time.
when a truck hit my car, limited edition smart bed. only for a limited time. the insurance company wasn't fair. i didn't know what my case was worth. so i called the barnes firm. i was hit by a car and needed help. i called the barnes firm, that was the best call i could've made. i'm rich barnes. it's hard for people to know how much their accident case is worth. let our injury attorneys help you get the best result possible. before the fbi can get a search ♪ the barnes firm injury attorneys ♪ ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪
warrant to go through florida trump's florida residence last week, agents presented a judge with an affidavit, this is standard operating procedure, and which they presumably bait made the case as to why it should be searched. with the fbi started to find, there and how agents obtained their information. they presented all that to a judge, who then issued the warrants, as we know. last, week that search warrant was unsealed, and gave us an idea of what was uncovered at mar-a-lago, the affidavit remains under seal. that's why there's a hearing set for tomorrow 1 pm, where judge will decide that document should be released or not, the doj's fighting the release, warning that if disclosed, the affidavit was serves a roadmap to the governments ongoing investigation, in a manner that is highly unlikely to compromise future steps. the fact that this investigation implicates highly classified materials, further
underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation. asha rangappa is a former fbi special agent, she's an attorney and senior lecturer at yale university, and she joins me now. george conway was on the program last night, and he said there's no chance the judge is going to unseal this, that seems to be the consensus, is that where you are? >> yes, that's where i am, and i think that the government -- i think that's typical in a case. the time for the government to show -- drop the money, i guess it where would be a trial. if they choose to bring judges, that's where they have to reveal their witnesses, let trump confront them, give him all access to the evidence that is going to be used against him. but what is happening right now is that the investigation is ongoing, they are still building the case and there's a few clues in this government filing. as you mentioned, first they mention the roadmap, the fact that this would disclose the
direction and scope of the investigation, and investigative steps and witnesses. chris, this tells me that this probable cause was based on a number of factors, not just won the surge of they have a lot of different pieces of information that would be expected if they were asking the judge to approve a search in this case. the second compelling reason is that they say revealing these witnesses or sources could put them in danger and there's a footnote that actually sites to the attack on the fbi cincinnati's office, so this is a way in which trump and his supporters rhetoric is actually working against them in this legal argument. so finally, as you mentioned, they say that this implicates highly classified aid information, so there's a national security interest here, and i think this is what definitely tips the balance in the government's favor, because there's a lot of deference given when the government is trying to protect national security, and the compromising
of an investigation important to national security would be harmful to the entire nation. >> let me ask about the department of justice more broadly and merrick garland. you and i have spoken a number of times, i think you have been in the camp of -- a little bit of in the camp of, what exactly is going on over there? are you guys watching this january six hearing, are you moving on this? it does seem like there's sufficient predicate for an investigation and all that. in the intervening weeks, we've now got lots of activity at that grand jury in d. c., we've got the search of the mar-a-lago home. have you changed your perspective on what your understanding of doj and merrick garland are on this. >> i'm not sure if you're asking about where they are on this in terms of the mar-a-lago investigation or january 6th, because i think they're a little bit different. i continue to believe that merrick garland is very hamlet like, i think he thinks about it and struggles with it, i
think he understands that this is a historical moment. i think that the normal considerations that we talked about before with the january 6th investigation, pursuing trump, he had to put those aside in many ways. because this involved national security concerns, in other words he had no choice but to recover these documents, because there are so sensitive, and doing so could seriously injure the united states, or help one of our adversaries. so i think, in many ways, he was forced to take the step. that's why i think it's still an open question whether he is going to actually pursue charges, because when you have a national security interest as competing goals here national security interests are a little bit different in the criminal punishment, deterrence, all that kind of stuff. they recovered the document, so there's a possibility he could say, look, goal achieved,
mischief managed, we can assess the damage and move on, and focus on these other investigations, i think the filing to go back to the affidavit, their argument is that it's inappropriate to unseal an affidavit before charges are filed, and that this is an ongoing investigation. which again, suggests to me that they believe that the fair part, where trump's interests will be vindicated, and his rights et cetera, will be one charges are filed, so i think it might be moving in that direction in this case, mainly because i think it would look really bad if he didn't, if he wasn't ready to go all the way, i still am not completely sure about the january 6th investigation. partly, because some of those criminal charges, are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, i think it really depends on the evidence that they accumulate, among other factors. >> speaking of that evidence, we should note that the new york times reporting just before we went on air, that the
-- for all the documents agency provided to the january six committee, that seems to be playing a little bit of catch up, but that's obviously huge cash of documents, so we're learning about things, i think the subpoenas actually subpoena back in may. so we're learning about things a bit lately in terms of what the grand jury is up to, but it's been quite active as well, asha rangappa, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> still to come, why is doctor oz having so much trouble connecting in his very recently adopted home state of pennsylvania? it might have something to do with his grocery shopping habits, that is next.
host: tell me the... mom: chimichanga! name the device... the telephone! turns out moms are always right, and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage - go with the general.
i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insuranceverage - through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price?
also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. >> the pennsylvania senate race,
democratic senator that state. has demonstrate from the get-go, a clear vision of how to run against his republican opponent, mehmet oz. painting him as a rich, that touch buffoon, it is not live in no understand the state he is ostensibly running to represent. back in april, oz released a video -- attacking democrats for high prices at the grocery store, and it has resurfaced this week. >> i'm grocery shopping at wegner's. and my wife was selling vegetables for crudités. there's broccoli. that's $2. it's a ton of broccoli there. there is asparagus, that's $4. carrots, that's four more dollars, that's $10 of vegetables there. and we need some guacamole. that's $4 more. and she loves salsa, yeah, they
have salsa there. $6? there must be a shortage of salsa. guys, that's $20 for crudités, and this doesn't include the [inaudible] i mean, that's outrageous. we've got joe biden to thank for this. >> [laughs] oh, i've watched that 40 times now. it is keeping off. first, there is no store called wegner's, he probably meant to say wagner's but he got it confused with wegmans, a fancier grocery schain in pennsylvania and throughout the northeast, with many locations in new jersey, where oz lives -- didn't end there. oz was trying to make a point that inflation was causing higher bills at the consumer market. his choice for cruditéss, fringe for all vegetable flatter, was not the most relate-able shopping
experience. he had a head of broccoli, a bunch of asparagus, and a very large bag of full-size carrots. you can get those little -- go for the premade guacamole and salsa to just get those numbers up. fetterman has been having an absolute field day with a video, since it resurfaced earlier this week. >> in pa, we call this a veggie tray. and if this looks like anything other than a veggie tray to, then i am not your candidate. and i'm serious. doctor oz doesn't even know the name of the grocery store that he's in. >> the fetterman campaign is also now selling these wegner's stickers, caption hashtag, let them eat cruditéss. -- even the conservative outlet -- the very conservative outlet, newsmax -- won't give oz a pass for the gaffe. >> let's talk crudités, if we can. is dr. oz relatable to the every day
-- >> i joke about cruditéss, which is my way of -- you can't even put vegetables on a plate in the middle of the campaign. go do whatever we do to make sure that the people of pennsylvania respect what we are about. >> no offense, but for those watching in pennsylvania, you know how particular many people are about their groceries, what happened with wegman's and wegner's? can you explain that to them? >> yeah, i was exhausted. campaigning 18 hours a day, listen, i've got my kid's names wrong as well. >> so, there is now another oz gaffe making the round, the tv doctor recently said he owns two homes. >> how many houses do you own? >> well, i legitimately -- i own two houses. but one of them we are building and the other one i rent. >> so, oz claims he legitimately owns two houses but rains are the properties. an investigation by the daily
beast shows he actually owns, i make this up not, ten houses. he rents some of them out to other houses as a landlord but he is not running them from someone. -- anyone who's ever rented, knows there's a big difference between renting from and renting too. -- carly has caused down double digits. the gap will narrow, if you consider this, every single ballot race, basically close to a dead heat, that's my operating assumption. but if democrats are going to pull off a miracle and keep or even expand their senate majority, they're going to need lots of help from walking, talking characters like doctor oz.
with xfinity internet, you get advanced security that helps protect you at home and on the go. you feel so safe, it's as if... i don't know... evander holyfield has your back. i wouldn't click on that. hey, thanks! we got a muffin for ed! all right! you don't need those calories. can we at least split it? nope. advanced security that helps protect your devices in and out of the home. i mean, can i have a bite?
backlash across the country in the wake of the supreme court overturning roe v. wade. we are seeing in blue states and red states like. earlier this month, in red kansas, voters rejected a ballot measure that would remove the right to an abortion from the state constitution. they were the first state to vote squarely on abortion in that kind of referendum after the court's decision. yesterday, in south carolina, the republican-led house judiciary committee met to consider a near total abortion ban, with no exceptions for rape or incest. which is where a republican south carolina lawmaker gave this moving speech. >> a 19 year old girl appeared at the er and she was 15 weeks pregnant. her water broke. and the fetus was an viable. the standard of care was to
advise her that they could extract or she could go home. the attorneys told the doctors that because of the fetal heartbeat bill, because that 15-week-year-old had a heartbeat, the doctors could not extract. there is a 50% chance, greater than 50% chance that she is going to lose her uterus. a 10% chance that she will develop sepsis and herself die. that weighs on me. i voted for that bill. these are affecting people and we are having a meeting about this. it took that whole week, i did not sleep. i followed up with the dollar a week later. she had heard nothing, did not know about the 19 year old. thank god i followed up. two weeks later, she did return to the er, they did extract the noun on beating fetus. and what we do matters.
. >> the committee voted 13 to 7 to advance the bill, five republicans, including the man you just watched did not vote. leave her as a health reporter who did a great reporting on this. where she covered senior section of gender and a health care. she joins me now. i wondered, because you are kind of in the weeds on this and reporting on this and there is a lot of fun stories to track. the kind of general view of what has been happening in the states. particularly republican controlled states that didn't have an automatic law that just flipped on after the dobbs decision. what they have been doing in those states, which all seems to be moving in one direction, towards a long abortion. >> this has been really complicated and very difficult for these states that were theoretically prepared to move forward and start passing abortion bans. we saw this amongst not
democrats, but republicans over whether to include rape and incest exceptions. really derailed the bill that now has passed and goes into effect soon. republicans are really torn over this in west virginia. they house and senate has passed abortion bans without, and they haven't been able to reconcile that. it has from passing this band that they were called back in the session to make law. what is really striking, this has been such an essential issue for republicans for a long time. they've been passing abortion bans since roe was law of the land. and we heard so many governors and political leaders talk about calling a special session as soon as roe is overturned, to pass these new bans, and restrictions. and a lot of them [inaudible] there was this wave of new laws that came about this summer. and right now, what is instead
happening, is that republicans as well are really grappling, in some cases, for the first time, with the personal and pragmatic and also the political consequences of these kinds of laws. >> that is a really interesting point. there is also, of course, the politics of this. i think, as they grapple with that -- i mean, there is new polling today from the marquette pole, which is pulling a statewide senate race in wisconsin, but it also asked people about abortion. obviously, that is very closely divided state. and -- basically, do you favor the scotus decision to overturn roe v. wade? are you on the side of the court here? only, 62% of republicans favorite. 28% oppose. that is a huge number. among independents, two thirds oppose it. among democrats, 92. overall, 60 to 33. we have seen numbers like that in state after state, after jobs, which, i have got to imagine, is part of what is entering the mix as the states are moving, in some cases, faithfully, to criminalize abortion.
>> this backlash has the potential to be really potent. it is what democrats are counting on to hold on to the senate. you hear senator elizabeth warren talk about the [inaudible] pennsylvania in particular, as debates where she really sees the backlash to the overturning of roe v. wade as a chance to pick up seats. we have heard this from the democratic senate campaign arm. they really hope that this is something that voters are going to react to. and the polling is often tricky, because polling on abortion is always complicated. and it depends on how you frame the question. but i think you are absolutely right, that there is a real chance at this sort of brakes something, that had been holding the republican party together for a long time. that is really what we saw in kansas. >> there is also, of course, the human aspect of this, which is harder to report on, obviously, because all of this is shrouded in privacy, as it should be. by these latest story out of louisiana, where woman named nancy davis says her baby was diagnosed with a rare and fatal
condition, with a baby skull fails to form in the room. and according to health experts, babies with can dish an only live for minutes or hours. but because the mother's life it's not danger, she does not qualify an abortion, she was denied one and now has to carry the baby across state lines to get in abortion. again, these are just one of the stories that we are hearing. but we know, with certainty, there are others like this. what effect do you think these kinds of individual stories are having on peoples perceptions? >> i think they are tremendous. i think for a long time this has been seen as this really abstract issue, if something that happens to someone else, and not to your loved one or sister or their loved one or child. and now people are reading these stories and they are seeing themselves, right? because this could happen to anyone and they are horrified, that have no exceptions for the death of the fetus. they're horrified by these laws
that are so unclear that doctors cannot provide health care they expect to be able to give. >> shefali luthra, who has been following this closely at the 19th, a very reliable source of reporting on this. thank you. >> thanks for having -- >> that is all in on this wednesday night. alex wagner tonight starts than that is "all in" on this wednesday night. alex wagner tonight begins right now. >> i just want to say, i think your last block is so important, and the fact that we are finally telling stories about women's sacrifices and suffering, it's so shameful that it has to happen under these aus miss, but the fact that we can finally tell these stories about the difficulties women face in motherhood, in child bearing, the health access that they are denied, it is so important and so critical so thank you for doing that, on behalf of all women. >> well, you're welcome. but yes,